[Taxacom] Paraphyly is INEVITABLE, so why fight it?

[John Grehan]

 -----Original Message-----
From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Kenneth Kinman

Ken begins to sound a bit like the Borg.


> John might argue that I should have included Pongo and relatives in that polytomy as 
> well, but the molecular data argues against that (sorry John).  Without molecular 
> evidence to corroborate his morphological evidence (of an orangutan-hominid clade), it 
> just reeks of plesiomorphy.    

One could equally say the opposite. And don't forget, the morphology is consistent for the fossil record in recognizing hominids (which molecules cannot).

>proposed here in April 2011:

???11 Pongidae% (sensu lato)
??????? ????1 Dryopithecus
????????????? Ouranopithecus
????????????2 Lufengpithecus
????????????B Sivapithecus
????????????C Khoratpithecus
????????????D Pongo
????????????3 Gorilla
?????? ??? ?A Samburupithecus
????????????A Pan
????????????A Sahelanthropus
????????????A Orrorin
????????????A Ardipithecus 
????????????A {{Hominidae}}                           

????_a_ Hominidae
????????????1 Australopithecus% (sensu lato)
??????????_a_ Homo 

The above illustrates the difference in our respective approaches. Ken writes up a particular arrangement without specifying the supporting characters and we are just supposed to swallow it. This is not even about paraphyly, but the difference between an unsupported assertion and an argument supported by evidence - and published evidence at that. 

> On the other hand, the ? shows that the position of Ouranopithecus is even more uncertain
> (whether it clades with Dryopithecus at all is uncertain).

Only according to the authority of Ken Kinman, but the actual available evidence shows that it clusters with hominids, orangutans, and other fossil relatives - based on morphological evidence of course - evidence that is supposed to be 'plesiomorphic' because it is not congruent with sequence molecules. Therein lies the absurdity of the view that morphology cannot be relied upon because for the living it conflicts with molecular ideology, but for fossils morphology is at the same time imbued with ultimate authority. Therein lies the absurdity of it all.

John Grehan